Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1887-06-06
TIRE SUPREME COURT.

A II. Willie, chief justice; j. W. stayton and
II. +. Gaines, associate justices; o. ;. Morse,
clerk; NJ. NJ. Johnson, bailih'
M. L. Oppenheimer vs.. NJ. Half & Bro,
from Maverick; opinion by Stayton, a. j..
+. BuTkhardt was a merchant indebted to
appeMees in the sum of S796S 80 and
they knowing that he was involyent
bought MS entire stock Of merchandise IN
satisfaction of their claim and $1,000 cash
paid to Burkhardt. While the goods
were in the possession of appellees, ap-
pellant sued out e writ of attachment for
q debt due by Burkhardt. As to
the abstract principle of law the
debtor had right to prefer
appellees and turn over his stock of goods
to them unless the goods were more val
liable than the claim. If, however, the
merchandise clearly exceeded the value of
the sum due, and the creditors knowing
of the insolvency paid to the debtor sum
of money 10 induce him TO make the con
veyance, thus preventing other creditors
from enforcing their claims, then the con-
Yeyance ought to be deemed fraudulent,
Is it places the debtor in q position to
defraud his other creditors of the goods
represented by the cash, by placing the
cash out of the reach of other creditors.
The eppel,ees were allowed to prove what
sum they realized on the sale Of the mer-
Chardise. This evidence should have been
excluded, because II was TO appellee's in
terest that the amount realized from the
sale OF the goods should be no more
or even less than their claim, for they
could thus show that the other creditors
were not hindered or delayed. The evil
dence was admitted to show the value OF
the goods and the good faith of sppellees;
unless the evidence had gone further 1t
was inadmissible. For the admission OF
this evidence the Judgment is reversed
and the cause remanded.
c +. ACers VS.. w r. Curtis, from Clay;
opinion by Willie, c. j. Appellee, APP
pellant AID two others were suretleS on q
note which bore interest at II per cent.
and had 10 per cent. attorneys fees added
in case of suit The makers of the note
were unable to psY it when 1t fell due,snd
appellee paid the whole note, including
interest. Appellee then brought suit
against the makers and his cosmetics
and got Judgment for the full
amount against the makers, and
in case they could not pay,
against his cosmetics for Uhree-fourths
of the amount of the note, and from this
Judgment Acers prosecutes q writ of
error. The judgment of three-fourths OF
the amount due against the CO.
sureties is erroneous because appellee
was only entitled to contribution from
each co-surety in aliquot parts according
TO their number For If ne could recover
a Join. Judgment, in case Of insolvency
some one may have TO pay all, and the
rule IN equity is that the burden must be
equally borne by the solvent sureties.
Nor can we perceive any reason for
appellee recovering attorneys fees as
ne paid none and the cosmetics stand in
as good position and have all the adj
vsntages that he has. This question
is clearly settled. The other questions
it is not necessary to consider. For the
errors pointed out, the judgment is re-
versed and the case remsnded.
E. T. Davidson VS.. j. M. Killeen, from
Falls; opinion by Stayton, a. j. The
contention in this case was as to the
south boundary line of the John 81.
Haney grant, which is owned in part by
appellee; appellant owning two grants